[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parul Kalra vs State Of Haryana on 20 March, 2026
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRM-M-41979-2025 1
122
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-41979-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision : 20.03.2026
Parul Kalra ....Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana .....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present :- Mr. Navmohit Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Tanuj Sharma, A.A.G., Haryana.
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
CRM-30175-2025
Allowed as prayed for.
Main case
1. Present second petition has been filed for grant of regular bail
in case FIR No.78 dated 09.04.2021, under Sections 22C/29 of Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station
Guhla, District Kaithal.
2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that the Police party while
on patrolling on 09.04.2021, received a secret information to the effect
that Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanju is involved in selling of of narcotic tablets at
the back of his medical shop. It was informed that he would come to bus
Stand Agondh, for selling the same to drug addicts and if the raid is
conducted, he could be arrested along with the contraband. On receiving
the information, the police reached the place as disclosed in the secret
information. A person resembling in the secret information was seen
coming there, having a polythene bag with him. On asking, he disclosed
1 of 5
his name to be Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanju. He was suspected to be carrying
some contraband in the bag, hence, the same was searched. On conducting
the search of the bag, 1020 tablets containing Tramadol Hydrochloride,
were recovered from the same. He failed to produce any license regarding
possession of the same and hence, the FIR was registered and he was
arrested on spot. The investigation commenced. During investigation,
complicity of the petitioner surfaced and thus, she was arrayed as an
accused in the present case. Resultantly, the petitioner was arrested on
24.01.2025. The samples taken were sent to the FSL. On receipt of FSL
report, challan was presented and on framing of charges, trial commenced.
The petitioner approached the Court of Learned Judge, Special Court
(NDPS Act), Kaithal praying for grant of bail, however, finding no merit,
the same was declined after hearing both the sides by Learned trial Court
vide order dated 24.02.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner earlier
approached this Court by way of filing of CRM-M-14730-2025, however,
the same was dismissed as not pressed on 28.04.2025. Hence, the
petitioner is before this Court by way of filing of present second petition
for grant of bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that
the present case is based on the secret information, however, there is
violation of provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act. He submits that the
alleged recovery of 1020 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride weighing 408
grams was effected from co-accused, Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanju, who has
already been granted bail by learned trial Court. He submits that on the
basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, the petitioner has been
arrayed as an accused in the present case. He submits that even otherwise,
2 of 5
the disclosure statement in itself is not an admissible evidence. He submits
that the petitioner is behind bars from last more than 1 year, however,
there is no material progress in the trial. It is further contended that though
petitioner is involved in one more case, however, she is on bail in the said
case as in that case also the petitioner was arrayed on the basis of
disclosure statement. He thus, submits that in the facts and circumstances
of the case, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the
submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the
recovery effected from the co-accused is of 408 grams of Tramadol
Hydrochloride, which falls under the commercial quantity and thus,
provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act, are attracted in the present case.
He submits that complicity of the petitioner though surfaced on the
inception of the FIR, during investigation, but the petitioner could not be
arrested initially and was arrested on 24.01.2025. He, on instructions, has
submitted that out of total 17 prosecution witnesses, only 05 witnesses
have been examined so far. He has produced the custody certificate of the
petitioner on record.
5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record,
it is deciphered that recovery of the alleged contraband has been effected
from co-accused, Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanju, who has already been granted
bail by the trial Court. Petitioner has been arrayed in the present case on
the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused. The alleged recovery
of 408 grams of Tramadol Hydrochloride, admittedly falls under the
category of commercial quantity. As per custody certificate, the petitioner
has suffered an incarceration of 01 year, 01 month and 25 days as on
19.03.2026. It further reflects that the petitioner is involved in one more
3 of 5
case, however, she is on bail in that case. As submitted before this Court,
out of total 17 prosecution witnesses, only 05 witnesses have been
examined so far.
6. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after
conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by
both the parties before the trial Court.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case,
this Court cannot ignore the fact that the speedy trial is the fundamental
right of every accused. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd
Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw(SC)260,
this Court is of the opinion that the case of the petitioner is covered by the
ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the abovesaid
case Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed its views as under:-
19. A plain and literal interpretation of the conditions under
Section 37 (i.e., that Court should be satisfied that the accused is
not guilty and would not commit any offence) would effectively
exclude grant of bail altogether, resulting in punitive detention
and unsanctioned preventive detention as well. Therefore, the only
manner in which such special conditions as enacted under Section
37 can be considered within constitutional parameters is where
the court is reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the
material on record (whenever the bail application is made) that
the accused is not guilty. Any other interpretation, would result in
complete denial of the bail to a person accused of offences such as
those enacted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
20. xxxxx
21. .....it would be important to reflect that laws which impose
stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public
interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice
wrecked on the individual is immeasurable.
22. xxxxx
23. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to crime,
"as crime not only turns admirable, but the more
4 of 5
professional the crime, more honour is paid to the
criminal"22 (also see Donald Clemmer's 'The Prison
Community' published in 194023). Incarceration has further
deleterious effects - where the accused belongs to the weakest
economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in several
cases, scattering of families as well as loss of family bonds
and alienation from society. The courts therefore, have to be
sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an
acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure
that trials - especially in cases, where special laws enact
stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily.
8. The trial of the case will take sufficiently long time. Thus,
keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making
out a case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner
is ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing said
herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the
case.
20.03.2026 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
ps-I JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
